How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by Blue Apricot, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. Blue Apricot

    Blue Apricot Guest

    X-No-Archive
    How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?

    Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP?

    Blue Apricot
     
    Blue Apricot, Apr 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Blue Apricot

    Mike Brind Guest

    Mike Brind, Apr 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Blue Apricot

    Guffa Guest

    ASP will most likely be available for a very long time, but there will be no
    further development of the platform.

    I think that you should start learning ASP.NET, not because ASP is getting
    cold, but for the benefits of ASP.NET.

    If you know ASP you have the benefit of knowing how to develop client-server
    applications, but not much more than that. There are some similarities
    between ASP and ASP.NET, but not very much considering how large the .NET
    framework is. Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages
    and not stick to ASP practises.
     
    Guffa, Apr 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Blue Apricot

    Mike Brind Guest

    Guffa wrote:

    > Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages
    > and not stick to ASP practises.


    Why not?

    --
    Mike Brind
     
    Mike Brind, Apr 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Blue Apricot

    Guffa Guest

    "Mike Brind" wrote:

    >
    > Why not?
    >


    Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code
    in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe.

    When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the
    markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and
    harder to maintain.
     
    Guffa, Apr 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Guffa wrote:
    > "Mike Brind" wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Why not?
    >>

    >
    > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the
    > executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be
    > compiled and type safe.
    >
    > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags
    > in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to
    > follow and harder to maintain.



    This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects:
    <asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server"
    Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'>
    </asp:TextBox>




    --
    Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
    don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
    "NO SPAM"
     
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Apr 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Blue Apricot

    Mike Brind Guest

    Guffa wrote:
    > "Mike Brind" wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Why not?
    > >

    >
    > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code
    > in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe.
    >
    > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the
    > markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and
    > harder to maintain.


    Exactly what Bob said. And the bit about making it easier for
    designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I
    know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the
    thought of ploughing through all those server control tags,
    EditItemTemplates etc.

    For the vast majority of web applications, an OOP approach is overkill.
    A web page typically executes in about half a second or less, and then
    dies happily. You can use sessions, databases, text files or cookies
    to maintain some kind of state between pages, but web applications are
    not all about RAM-resident objects that might need to live for hours or
    days, undergoing all kinds of changes in state.

    Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well
    crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than
    those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be
    comfortable with Code Behind.

    And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an
    aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted
    script-based page. No one except the sysadmin will notice in the vast
    majority of cases. Please note, I'm not talking about Yahoo or Ebay.
    I'm talking about the huge number of B2B sites that have niche
    audiences and page impression counts of less than 1 million a year,
    which probably make up about 70% of all web sites.

    Not that I have anything against ASP.NET. I'm learning it myself, but
    if ASP is ever dumped by Microsoft, PHP is an equally valid alternative
    for the kind of work I do.

    Time to clamber off the soap box now..... :)

    --
    Mike Brind
     
    Mike Brind, Apr 19, 2006
    #7
  8. Blue Apricot

    Guffa Guest

    "Bob Barrows [MVP]" wrote:

    > Guffa wrote:
    > > "Mike Brind" wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Why not?
    > >>

    > >
    > > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the
    > > executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be
    > > compiled and type safe.
    > >
    > > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags
    > > in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to
    > > follow and harder to maintain.

    >
    >
    > This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects:
    > <asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server"
    > Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'>
    > </asp:TextBox>
    >
    >


    Yes, it can be done that way. It can also be done from code-behind, keeping
    that mess out of the markup.

    A matter of taste, I give you. I like it clean, compiled, type checked,
    layered and having as few surprises as possible.
     
    Guffa, Apr 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Blue Apricot

    Guffa Guest

    > And the bit about making it easier for
    > designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I
    > know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the
    > thought of ploughing through all those server control tags,
    > EditItemTemplates etc.


    I didn't say that, and I don't believe that either. Microsoft seems to be
    coming with something that really could work in that respect, but so far I'd
    like to keep the designers far away from the code.

    Separating the code from the markup is for keeping the code easy to develop
    and maintain.

    > Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well
    > crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than
    > those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be
    > comfortable with Code Behind.


    That works fine when all the code is in the same file, but when half of the
    code is in the html and half of it is in code-behind, it gets worse...

    > And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an
    > aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted
    > script-based page.


    It's not for the speed but for the stability.

    I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to
    ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream
    compared to script programming. It's so much easier to write stable and
    efficient code.
     
    Guffa, Apr 19, 2006
    #9
  10. On 18 Apr 2006 20:52:15 -0700, "Blue Apricot" <>
    wrote:
    in <>

    >X-No-Archive
    >How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?
    >
    >Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP?
    >
    >Blue Apricot


    Actually, the best advice I could offer would be to refactor it all in
    PHP over Apache using PostgreSQL. The performance is awesome as in
    ~superior to asp~, the conversion time is minimal, and the cost is
    nothing (FREE) but your time in order to see that I speak the ~truth~.

    ---
    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and no guarantees either express or implied.

    Stefan Berglund
     
    Stefan Berglund, Apr 20, 2006
    #10
  11. "Guffa" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > And the bit about making it easier for
    > > designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I
    > > know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the
    > > thought of ploughing through all those server control tags,
    > > EditItemTemplates etc.

    >
    > I didn't say that, and I don't believe that either. Microsoft seems to be
    > coming with something that really could work in that respect, but so far

    I'd
    > like to keep the designers far away from the code.
    >


    Well that's true. But HTML IS code. Designers shouldn't be let near it
    either.

    > Separating the code from the markup is for keeping the code easy to

    develop
    > and maintain.


    There's nothing in ASP that prevents this either. For example I often see
    this:-


    <tr><td>
    <%

    '---- Large chunk of code delivering content of TD

    %>
    </td>

    That can be hard to read however the same is easy enough to do this way:-

    <tr><td><%=GetTDContent()%></td>



    >
    > > Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well
    > > crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than
    > > those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be
    > > comfortable with Code Behind.

    >
    > That works fine when all the code is in the same file, but when half of

    the
    > code is in the html and half of it is in code-behind, it gets worse...
    >


    Not if good code contstruction principles are being applied. Concepts such
    as cohesive modules which are as old as programming itself still apply.

    > > And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an
    > > aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted
    > > script-based page.

    >
    > It's not for the speed but for the stability.
    >
    > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on

    to
    > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream
    > compared to script programming. It's so much easier to write stable and
    > efficient code.


    ASP applications of sufficient complexity where the above becomes true are
    being developed in combination with VB6.

    I've been developing in both ASP and .NET (not ASP.NET) for quite some time.
    I keep going back to ASP.NET thinking surely there must be a killer reason
    to use this stuff. So far I haven't found one.

    Anthony.
     
    Anthony Jones, Apr 20, 2006
    #11
  12. Guffa wrote:
    <snipped>
    > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to
    > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream
    > compared to script programming.


    ASP script is also compiled. This has been noted about a million times
    on these newsgroups, so it won't hurt to say it one more time:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_...81&as_maxd=21&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2006&safe=off

    On the first request for an ASP page, the ASP code is compiled to
    p-code, the p-code cached in IIS memory and executed. The cached p-code
    is (usually) used on subsequent page requests.

    Here's a post that contains a sample of the p-code (bytecode) to which
    ASP is compiled:
    http://groups.google.com/group/"&rnum=1&hl=en#85e373a57b655d3c

    There's an explanation of the ASP compiling process in Appendix 3, "ASP
    Caching", of:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...ptimize/iis5tune.mspx#XSLTsection130121120120
     
    Michael D. Kersey, Apr 21, 2006
    #12
  13. "Michael D. Kersey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Guffa wrote:
    > <snipped>
    > > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on

    to
    > > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream
    > > compared to script programming.

    >
    > ASP script is also compiled. This has been noted about a million times
    > on these newsgroups, so it won't hurt to say it one more time:
    >

    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_...81&as_maxd=21&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2006&safe=off
    >
    > On the first request for an ASP page, the ASP code is compiled to
    > p-code, the p-code cached in IIS memory and executed. The cached p-code
    > is (usually) used on subsequent page requests.
    >
    > Here's a post that contains a sample of the p-code (bytecode) to which
    > ASP is compiled:
    >

    http://groups.google.com/group/"&rnum=1&hl=en#85e373a57b655d3c
    >
    > There's an explanation of the ASP compiling process in Appendix 3, "ASP
    > Caching", of:
    >

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...ptimize/iis5tune.mspx#XSLTsection130121120120
    >


    Unfortunately the word 'compiled' is overloaded.

    It is true that the p-code for a parsed ASP pages is cached. However this
    p-code is still interpreted every time the page is executed.

    With ASP.NET the page is complied first to IL. However the IL is further
    compilied to native code and this native code is cached.

    Anthony.
     
    Anthony Jones, Apr 21, 2006
    #13
  14. So basically you are here to try and convert people. Why?






    > Actually, the best advice I could offer would be to refactor it all in
    > PHP over Apache using PostgreSQL. The performance is awesome as in
    > ~superior to asp~, the conversion time is minimal, and the cost is
    > nothing (FREE) but your time in order to see that I speak the ~truth~.
     
    Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP], Apr 21, 2006
    #14
  15. > How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?

    Have you ever actually used Microsoft product support for anything
    exclusively ASP-related?

    I view ASP technology as something you can use for as long as you want to,
    or can. For example, let's say you have a 1988 Corolla. It is clearly no
    longer covered by Toyota's warranty, but you are free to drive it for as
    long as you want, as long as you can maintain it and that it continues to
    meet the oh-so-rigid safety standards in the US. When it becomes too
    expensive to maintain, you dump it.

    Similarly with ASP, even if some future version of Windows drops support for
    ASP (which I doubt), there is no reason to immediately move to that platform
    if you are using ASP and wish to continue to do so.

    However, my guess is that they will continue to support ASP for as long as
    they continue to ship IIS. Since they are not making any changes to that
    side of the codebase, I can't think of anything they would gain by ripping
    out the ASP support (except maybe save some lines of code, but we know that
    isn't a priority over at Microsoft). Especially because of the backlash
    from all of these customers who have deployed this technology and are using
    it perpetually...

    > Should I start learning ASP.NET?


    If you have the time to invest, sure, it's definitely an advantage to have
    it in your toolbox, especially in today's job market. And it is a much more
    comprehensive platform that will give you more benefits in the long run. In
    the short term, however, if you are on a tight deadline, I'm not sure that
    switching mid-stream is going to be a very good thing.

    > Is it hard if you already know ASP?


    My suggestion when learning ASP.NET is to forget everything you learned
    about ASP (aside from the peripheral stuff, which is still important, like
    HTML, JavaScript, CSS). The whole architecture really is different, even
    though the name remains similar and IIS is still processing the server-side
    stuff.

    A
     
    Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP], Apr 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Well said really,

    I would also like to add that I have dragged my feet on really learning
    ASP.net these past 4 years. I have worked with it and given up in the past.
    I knew enough to be dangerous. It was not until recently that I really
    understand it and have become very very good with it.

    All it took was 3 weeks, a lot of reading, and about 100 hours with visual
    studio.net. Most of the help I needed was on the web. I could kick myself
    for not spending the time to get familiar with things before now. There is
    some really cool stuff. That being said I still love classic asp and wil
    always use it I am sure. At least now though I don't feel like I am behind
    the times.

    I recently made an elaborate authentication control that works with
    formsauthentication and roles and its just so cool now that I understand
    enough to do things like that.

    Unlike classic ASP.NET ASP.NET is probably one of those things your will
    never know everything about. There is just so much, but that also makes it
    very exciting. In the classic ASP world there is only so much to learn and a
    lot of us in these newsgroups have it 99% covered.

    I will agree with Aaron.. dont give up on classic asp and I too think it
    will around as long as IIS as we know it is, but don't be afraid to spend
    some serious time with .NET when you have time. Once you become friends
    you'll be glad to took the time to get acquated.



    "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?

    >
    > Have you ever actually used Microsoft product support for anything
    > exclusively ASP-related?
    >
    > I view ASP technology as something you can use for as long as you want to,
    > or can. For example, let's say you have a 1988 Corolla. It is clearly no
    > longer covered by Toyota's warranty, but you are free to drive it for as
    > long as you want, as long as you can maintain it and that it continues to
    > meet the oh-so-rigid safety standards in the US. When it becomes too
    > expensive to maintain, you dump it.
    >
    > Similarly with ASP, even if some future version of Windows drops support
    > for ASP (which I doubt), there is no reason to immediately move to that
    > platform if you are using ASP and wish to continue to do so.
    >
    > However, my guess is that they will continue to support ASP for as long as
    > they continue to ship IIS. Since they are not making any changes to that
    > side of the codebase, I can't think of anything they would gain by ripping
    > out the ASP support (except maybe save some lines of code, but we know
    > that isn't a priority over at Microsoft). Especially because of the
    > backlash from all of these customers who have deployed this technology and
    > are using it perpetually...
    >
    >> Should I start learning ASP.NET?

    >
    > If you have the time to invest, sure, it's definitely an advantage to have
    > it in your toolbox, especially in today's job market. And it is a much
    > more comprehensive platform that will give you more benefits in the long
    > run. In the short term, however, if you are on a tight deadline, I'm not
    > sure that switching mid-stream is going to be a very good thing.
    >
    >> Is it hard if you already know ASP?

    >
    > My suggestion when learning ASP.NET is to forget everything you learned
    > about ASP (aside from the peripheral stuff, which is still important, like
    > HTML, JavaScript, CSS). The whole architecture really is different, even
    > though the name remains similar and IIS is still processing the
    > server-side stuff.
    >
    > A
    >
     
    Kyle Peterson, Apr 21, 2006
    #16

  17. >
    > Unlike classic ASP.NET ASP.NET is probably one of those things your will
    > never know everything about. There is just so much, but that also makes it
    > very exciting. In the classic ASP world there is only so much to learn and

    a
    > lot of us in these newsgroups have it 99% covered.
    >


    There's not a lot preventing classic ASP developers using tools like VB6 to
    access significant chunks of the functionality of the windows API that .NET
    exposes directly in the framework. It's this 'all in one tool box' approach
    which makes the learning it appear difficult. In reality we're not likely
    need all of it just as very few 'classic' applications use all aspects of
    windows API.


    Anthony.
     
    Anthony Jones, Apr 21, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles A. Lackman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,408
    smith
    Dec 8, 2004
  2. SpamProof
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    607
    SpamProof
    Oct 21, 2003
  3. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    709
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  4. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,223
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  5. Charles Sullivan

    How widely supported is variable type 'long long int' ?

    Charles Sullivan, Jun 22, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    865
    Charles Sullivan
    Jun 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page